Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5560
- 5579)
5560. Petitioner number 250 is Mr and Mrs Dunsdon
of 13 Friars Avenue, and also Mrs Collins, who is the elderly
mother of Mrs Dunsdon and who also lives at that address. They
make a short number of points. Their rear garden backs on to the
far end of platform 5 at the present station and therefore they
will be extremely affected by a new platform 6 and associated
track. Both the platform and the track will be considerably nearer
to their property. They will have visual impact, they will be
able to see them, and they will have noise and they will have
vibration more than they have at the moment. In fact, they will
have a considerable brick wall right in front of their garden.
Commuters standing on the platform will have a direct view into
their house and garden, and I am sure many Members will recognise
how intrusive that could be. Screening plants, as proposed by
Crossrail, will be young saplings when they first go in, and will
take a considerable number of years to mature, if indeed they
do so. As the track will be much nearer to the house, they ask
what compensation they can expect for potential house movements
due to vibration (and also I suspect from the other factors).
They are concerned that the question of blight does need to be
addressed because clearly their property will be affected both
before and after implementation of the project. They have received
no offers of compensation or even noise insulation. Given their
relative proximity right beside the platform—and indeed
it will come closer to them—one does wonder why that is.
They, too, support the view that there is no need for a terminus
at Shenfield because of the fast train service to Liverpool Street.
5561. Petitioner 251, Philip and Karen Davies,
83 Friars Avenue. They are concerned at the loss of car parking
facilities, the traffic congestion, the noise, and the cost of
construction of the service to Shenfield, which they believe is
not justified due to the limited demand and minimal saving in
time. The existing service, they believe, is adequate and Crossrail
should terminate at Stratford. There will be uncertainty as to
house prices, at least during the period of the construction.
They repeat the view of many that there will be no benefit to
the residents of Shenfield due to the existence of the current
Metro and fast trains.
5562. They ask one additional question: have
One Railway and Crossrail actually talked together about using
the existing platform, platform 4, which I understand is used
for One services at Shenfield currently, currently used for slow
Metro trains, and whether this could be utilised by Crossrail
in place of One? The idea is that One will be replaced by Crossrail
and yet the argument is that there have to be segregated services,
as I understand it. To what extent has that argument been tested
and has it actually been aired as between One Railway and Crossrail
themselves? Using an existing platform would obviously considerably
reduce the disruption to residents and considerably reduce also,
one imagines, the cost of the scheme going ahead as proposed,
namely the replacement by Crossrail. I submit to you that may
be a question the Committee may want to consider further.
5563. Petition number 255, Doreen Headon of
50 Hunter Avenue. Her house faces the site. She will be eligible
for insulation and/or re-housing. She is concerned that the work
to be done will be on an embankment and therefore there will be
considerable noise pollution in her direction. The houses opposite
her will offer no protection as her house is above the roof line
and therefore the noise effect will be considerably greater than
has been suggested.
5564. It is a recurrent theme of the submissions
which I am representing to the Committee that there is a considerable
amount of high ground, particularly to the south of the station,
and people are finding themselves judged not to have the degree
of noise impact which they expect they will have because it appears
to assume that other houses will form a screen between them and
the station if they are set a row or two back. That appears not
to be the case in the Hutton Mount area as a whole and Mrs Headon
makes that particular point here.
5565. She makes the point also that Hunter Avenue
has very little heavy goods traffic at the moment and that she
will be facing 12 to 16 lorries a day, as Crossrail has put forward,
and the noise and vibration that will arise from that. She describes
what faces her as a "living hell". That may be a matter
on which you may take a view but there are very strong feelings
that the residents have, and very strong fears, and you may well
think that Crossrail need to do more to explain what they are
doing and the analysis behind what they are doing in these proceedings.
5566. She also mentions her human right to live
in peace in her own house. I think it is just worth remarking
that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights does
give a respect for private family life. Clearly there are limitations
on that. Clearly there are views that have been taken of the human
rights aspect of this particular project, but I think it is an
expectation that people now have that they will not be assailed
by this sort of disruption and difficulty without seeing a clear
benefit from it or a clear purpose to it.
5567. Petitioner 256, Peter and Queenie Cross,
32 Herington Grove. They face on to the proposed works. Mr Cross
is wheelchair bound. He is concerned about the hours of work and
concerned that they should not start before eight and finish at
six. He is also concerned about access to pavements within Hunter
Avenue and Friars Avenue in particular, where I gather the roads
are quite narrow and in one case there is only one pavement. He
is concerned that all stations, entrances, premises and rolling
stock have adequate access and lifts for disabled wheelchairs.
That may be a matter upon which Crossrail are able to offer some
reassurance, but that would be something that would be important
to establish.
5568. They also in their submission set out
a number of detailed requirements, which I will not take the Committee
through, as to mitigation measures and standards of site working.
Those are set out in their petition, as I say, the basic point
is that they want that to be regulated by Brentwood Borough Council,
and that is a point which a number of the Petitions make. They
also raise the question of whether or not there has been much
assessment of tannoy noise. There is nothing in the Environmental
Statement about the announcements that are made at the station
and whether or not residents will be able to hear them and, if
so, where, and that seems to be a question that it would be right
for Crossrail to answer.
5569. The next petitioners are 257. Perhaps
I should say, sir, I appreciate that to a degree the points that
I am raising are overlapping with each other, although I am dealing
with them as briefly as I can. You will appreciate that it is
inherent in the nature of this sort of process that the residents
do have a number of points they wanted to make and to the degree
that they are in common it shows the weight of argument or the
weight of concern behind them.
5570. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think it
is necessary to go through them to make the points adequately.
Indeed, I will stop you if I think it is getting too much for
the Committee.
5571. Mr Welfare: Petitioner 257 is William
and Colina Watt of Greenloaning in Herington Grove. Mr and Mrs
Watt are aged 80 and 77 respectively. They are dependent in their
old age on the realisation of capital invested in their house,
and that is a matter of great concern to them because they now
find their property is blighted and the uncertainties of the timing
of the start of the project, and therefore obviously the finish
of it, mean that they are no longer in a position to plan ahead.
There are apparently two unoccupied properties, 3 and 5 Herington
Road, opposite them at this stage. Therefore, they are very concerned
as to what the future holds from their point of view as a result
of this proposal.
5572. Petitioner 258 is Mr and Mrs Marshall.
They make six points in their summary points. The point about
the north east terminus which should be at Stratford which gives
a negligible benefit to residents. They also query in paragraph
39 of their Petition the need for an extra platform, a similar
issue to one raised a moment ago.
5573. In relation to noise, they argue that
the Promoters should provide a comprehensive consultation and
noise monitoring scheme and agree standards with Brentford Borough
Council, with a compensation code attached to it for any breach
of those standards. If I may say so, that seems to be something
that is missing at the moment as a process by which Crossrail
not simply assess whether or not individual houses are suffering
from noise intrusion, and therefore qualify for insulation or
temporary rehousing, but a consultation process that places the
decision in the hands of someone other than the interested party,
the Promoter; and the obvious person in that instance would be
Brentford Borough Council.
5574. If I may say so, there seems to me to
be an important question there. One of the petitioners, Mrs Fanning,
this morning raised this issue: "I have been told that I
do not qualify but I have not been told why except that it is
just not assessed as significant." That is a decision by
Crossrail reached without explanation and communicated to an applicant
under the hardship scheme, I think it was. I think residents are
making the point, and one or two others make the same point, that
that decision ought to be in others' hands. There ought to be
a transparent process of decision-making about the consequences
in terms of the amount of disruption that residents face.
5575. Car parking: they would prefer and want
a scheme provided by the Promoter, again agreed with the borough
council to replace parking spaces lost during the construction
period.
5576. Hours of working, they would like that
and the activity around it, the deliveries, unloading, lorry movements,
et cetera, placed in the hands of the borough council. As I say,
eight `til six and nine `til one, Monday to Friday and Saturday,
not seven to seven as has been proposed.
5577. The loss of trees: all trees to be replaced
with mature specimens not immature specimens.
5578. The planning regime: I think my learned
friend, Ms Lieven, touched on this this morning. What does the
planning regime involve? What control of pollution powers will
the authority have? Will it be able to control the construction
code, car parking, hours of working, noise and so on? How much
will the District Council be able to control it?
5579. Petitioner 260 is Mr and Mrs McNess of
38 Herington Grove. They have really similar concerns to those
I have just dealt with, to establish a detailed regulation by
Brentwood Borough Council covering hours of disruption and litigation
of disruption difficulties. That, in their full Petition, is the
argument they make, but they also question whether or not an analysis
can be done to support the need for a new platform, and that again
is a matter on which Crossrail may have evidence to bring.
|
